Clinical evaluation of lithium disilicate versus indirect resin composite partial posterior restorations – A 7.8-year retrospective study

The intent of this article is to review the numerous factors that affect the mechanical properties of particle- or fiber-filler-containing indirect dental resin composite materials. The focus will be on the effects of degradation due to aging in different media, mainly water and water and ethanol, cyclic loading, and mixed-mode loading on flexure strength and fracture toughness. Several selected papers will be examined in detail with respect to mixed and cyclic loading, and 3D tomography with multi-axial compression specimens. The main cause of failure, for most dental resin composites, is the breakdown of the resin matrix and/or the interface between the filler and the resin matrix. In clinical studies, it appears that failure in the first 5 years is a restoration issue (technique or material selection); after that time period, failure most often results from secondary decay.

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the survival rate of ceramic and resin inlays, onlays, and overlays and to identify the complication types associated with the main clinical outcomes. Two reviewers searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for articles published between 1983 through April 2015, conforming to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for systematic reviews. Clinical studies meeting the following criteria were included: 1) studies related to resin and ceramic inlays, onlays, and overlays; 2) prospective, retrospective, or randomized controlled trials conducted in humans; 3) studies with a dropout rate of less than 30%; and 4) studies with a follow-up longer than 5 y. Of 1,389 articles, 14 met the inclusion criteria. The meta-regression indicated that the type of ceramic material (feldspathic porcelain vs. glass-ceramic), study design (retrospective vs. prospective), follow-up time (5 vs. 10 y), and study setting (university vs. private clinic) did not affect the survival rate. Estimated survival rates for glass-ceramics and feldspathic porcelain were between 92% and 95% at 5 y (n = 5,811 restorations) and were 91% at 10 y (n = 2,154 restorations). Failures were related to fractures/chipping (4%), followed by endodontic complications (3%), secondary caries (1%), debonding (1%), and severe marginal staining (0%). Odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) were 0.19 (0.04 to 0.96) and 0.54 (0.17 to 1.69) for pulp vitality and type of tooth involved (premolars vs. molars), respectively. Ceramic inlays, onlays, and overlays showed high survival rates at 5 y and 10 y, and fractures were the most frequent cause of failure.

It has been difficult for investigators to simultaneously and reliably evaluate bite force in the intercuspal position with the area and location of occlusal contacts. This study was designed to investigate the variations in these parameters with respect to two factors: three levels of clenching and the preferred chewing side. Human subjects with normal occlusion were examined with a recently developed system (Dental Prescale Occluzer, Fuji Film, Tokyo, Japan). The three levels of clenching intensity were assessed by masseteric EMG activity and included the maximum voluntary contraction, and 30% and 60% of the maximum. The results indicated that the bite force and occlusal contact area on the whole dental arch increased with clenching intensity. In contrast, the average bite pressure, obtained by dividing the bite force by the contact area, remained unchanged regardless of the clenching intensity. As the clenching intensity increased, the medio-lateral position of the bite force balancing point shifted significantly (P<0.01) from the preferred chewing side toward the midline. The antero-posterior position remained stable in a range between the distal third of the first molar and the mesial third of the second molar. The bite force and occlusal contact area, which were mainly on the molars, increased with the clenching intensity, whereas the proportions of these two variables on each upper tooth usually did not change significantly. The exception was the second molar on the non-preferred chewing side. When comparisons were made between pairs of specific upper teeth of same name, usually no significant difference was found in bite force or occlusal contact area, regardless of the clenching level. Again, the exception to this observation was the second molar on the preferred chewing side, which had a larger area at the 30% clenching level. The results in normal subjects suggest that as the clenching intensity increases in the intercuspal position, the bite force adjusts to a position where it is well-balanced. This adjustment may prevent damage and overload to the teeth and temporomandibular joints.